Re: [rtcweb] A few questions on draft-ejzak-dispatch-webrtc-data-channel-sdpneg-00

["Makaraju, Maridi Raju (Raju)" <[e-mail]>]

+ mmusic
- rtcweb (in bcc)

Hi Paul,
I wanted to close this email loop. Please see my inline comments.

> >
> > [Raju] If I understand correctly, these parameters simply define the
> > data channel transport properties. Yes, they may have some correletion
> with
> > subprotocol, but that's not a one-to-one mapping.
> > For example, a given subprotocol could run on a reliable or
> > unreliable transport; depending on app needs it may use unreliable
> > transport and deal with reliablity at subprotocol stack (or ignore it).
> 
> In some cases. But in general it is easy and common to define a protocol
> that needs a reliable transport, and it won't work without one.
> 
> What if every application in the world that uses TCP had the option to
> specify if it was reliable or not? How many would screw it up?
> 
[Raju] 
Application subprotocol users need to know the transport needs for the protocol and select a single transport if multiple options exist. This is similar to how users select TCP or UDP when implementing any Layer5 protocol (e.g. SIP) on top of Layer 4.

If APIs abstract this subprotocol then the transport selection can be hidden under the API (if only one choice exists) and API user won't have to specify a transport. 

We really appreciate your time in providing valuable comments on these drafts!

Best Regards!
Raju